Most climate-change advocates can't even state basic evidence to support their conclusions.

A consensus of the scientific community does not constitute scientific fact.

Climate study is not truly a science.

The prediction of a model is not a fact.

Climate researchers have now 3 times been caught conspiring to produce fraudulent results to support the warming conclusion.

Scientism is a belief system similar to religion, as opposed to science, which is a process for discerning objective truth.

Many of these examples are on full display in Tucker's interview. Bill Nye comes on to talk about the cognitive dissonance of climate skeptics. He doesn't even want to really talk about the science, as it is "settled". Note the meaning of the phrase cognitive dissonance. It is the state of holding two or more contradictory beliefs. It also implies some level of discomfort with the condition. One is troubled by the contradiction, perhaps at a subconscious level. The discomfort marks the difference of cognitive dissonance with Orwellian doublethink, which can be thought of as an immunity to cognitive dissonance. Those who exhibit the Oliver Effect are also immune, because they are not knowledgeable enough to even comprehend the contradictions of their beliefs.

So in the case of the climate skeptic, what is the cognitive dissonance? According to Nye, the contradictory beliefs are something like this.

Climate change is a fact because of the scientific consensus.

Climate skeptics are skeptical about climate change.

That is not cognitive dissonance. That is just being skeptical. Think about it. Nye went on the air with the sole intention of talking about cognitive dissonance, and he doesn't even know what it means. He thinks cognitive dissonance means not believing something you should believe. It's a slightly more refined version of the liberal tendency to call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. Everyone who disagrees with me has cognitive dissonance. The man really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I wish Tucker would have pushed him on that.

Tucker did push him hard on point #1 from up above, that climate-change proponents can't state basic evidence to support their claims. He really drills to the heart of the matter. To what degree are humans impacting the climate? What would the climate look like if humans didn't generate CO2? This is the fundamental question of climate change, is it not? Nye said the science was settled, but he can't provide the answer. He should be able to, if he's correct. It would be like going on the air to say that drugs raise crime rates, that all who disagree have cognitive dissonance, and then not even know what percentage of crimes are drug-related. Except it's even worse than that. The drug crime percentage is a knowable statistic. It would be possible to be correct about the causation and not know the statistic, just irresponsible. But in this case it's impossible to know precisely what the climate would look like without human input, just like it's impossible to know if it will rain two months from next Tuesday.

Nye either doesn't understand the concept, or he does but he knows if he admits it he will invalidate the entire premise that there is no room for skepticism when it comes to climate change. His evidence is always in the form of a conclusion. Grapes growing in England is his evidence. But that doesn't say anything about the role carbon dioxide has played. Similarly, he talks about rate increases or coastal cities threatened if sea levels rise. None of this addresses the question. That he can't provide basic evidence for his own beliefs is pretty bad.

It gets even worse. Nye does finally field an answer. He says that without manmade effects, the climate today would be the same as around 1750. After stating that the climate naturally changes, he goes on to assert that without human activities, the climate would not have changed in almost 300 years. That, my friends, is cognitive dissonance.